Any day now, the government will make its long delayed announcement on whether a third runway should be built at Heathrow or Gatwick. Personally I am against both. During my 18 undistinguished months as an environment minister, I learned one thing about the aviation lobby: their appetite is voracious. They want more of everything. Runways, terminals, you name it. I also learned that in the end, often after initial resistance, governments always give way.
Although from time to time industry representatives hint that they would be prepared to make concessions on the handful of night flights that come in over central London each morning, disturbing the sleep of several million people, this is soon forgotten once they have got their way. On one occasion, when I suggested inviting industry representatives to meet the MPs whose constituencies were most affected by night flights, I was told by officials that they wouldn’t even turn up if the invitation came from one so far down the pecking order as I. When I eventually got them round a table, we were given a long list of reasons why nothing could be done about anything, the most ludicrous of which was ‘wind speeds over China’. I don’t buy the argument that indefinite airport expansion is essential for our economic future. The answer is to develop regional airports, making sure that they are accessible by public transport. As for Heathrow and Gatwick, demand management, rather than predict and provide, is the order of the day.
How are we to explain the Trump phenomenon? A good friend (well to the right of me) who lived in Houston for many years went back recently to look up old friends, all wealthy and successful. He was astonished to find that many of them seemed to think they were victims of oppression, living under some sort of tyranny.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in